What I want, they don't make!

[CharBaby]

Ya know, I have always loved my muscle cars and the era that I grew up in when everything including mom's station wagon smoked up the tires. I can still smell the tire rubber burning!

But, I was also fond of the days,(decade later) late 70's through the early 90's when car companys were making these little runabouts(pocket rockets) that were fun to drive and got 40mpg...Remember? Not the Fast & Furious but, little 4 cyl's hatchbacks with manual trannys that went like H.E.doubletoothpicks. Couldn't keep'em under 80mph on the highway

VW started it all with the IIRC, the Rabbit in the late 70's and they really had the market on this. Then the Asian cars followed. Civic Si, Colt Turbo, Toyota FX-16 and others too,(Escort GT, Renault Feugo, Isuzu Impulse & Shelby Charger) and I can't remember any longer. Then refinement set in and came the Integra, Probe, Mopar/Mitsu, Lazer/Eclips. Then they started getting larger, more refined, available w/V6's and mpg was going down but the cars were getting faster and nicer too. Maybe too nice! The catigory was changing.

Now, I'm seeing a shimmer of light again with the new...Mazda2, Ford Fiesta and maybe others too. Little runabouts that screw and get high MPG. Smooth 4cyl's and slick sticks, good clutch feel and pedal placement, tight body structure, handles tight around the corners and too small for families or luggage. Doesn't have to pull high g's or do 0-60 super fast, just has to feel like it is!

What got me to this subject is, a friend of mine just got a new to him...'08 Mini Cooper S...Nice Car! Lots-a-money even used($20+ G's). I'm kinda thinking about $14K new and better MPG's just for kicks.

Not going anywhere with this subject but, if others want to comment, please add to this

 

[ARCOgraphite]

I feel ya, but most of the 1 ton cars weigh a ton and a half now. A lotus elise for under 15K would be nice.

 

[oggb]

Heck, even the new Miatas weigh 2450+ lbs. That's a shame, really.

 

[sciphi]

Wait until this time next year, and in 2013. The Ford Fiesta and Focus ST's are coming out, the Fiat 500 Abarth is due here, Hyundai's Veloster is arriving, and likely a few other small, cheap "hot hatches" are on their way.

From what I've been reading, we're on the brink of another "hot hatch" invasion.

 

[Steve S]

Better mpgs is always good for a daily driver.

 

[callbay]

I've got an 07 MX5/Miata that you would love. Really a blast to drive especially with the top down. 28 to 32 mpg. I have the six speed auto but I use the manual (sort of manual with no clutch) often. They are mid teens used and I have had 0 trouble with mine after 32,000 miles.

 

[mva]

CB - I think your memory is failing you. Cars today are as good or better. Cars back then might have been lighter but they were slower, got same or worse fuel economy and they were more dangerous to travel in. Check out braking distance (Car and driver data):

1983 Rabbit GTI

BASE PRICE: $7995 (1983 dollars) = $18,000 in 2011 dollars

90 hp

Wheelbase: 94.5 in Length: 155.3 in
Curb weight: 2100 lbs

Zero to 60 mph: 9.7 sec

Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.78 g

Braking, 70–0 mph: 194 ft

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway: 26 mpg/37 mpg


2011 Ford Fiesta

(base price: $15,795)

118 hp

Wheelbase: 98.0 in Length: 155.5 in
Curb weight: 2462 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 8.7 sec

Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.84 g

Braking, 70–0 mph: 170 ft

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway 28/38 mpg

I would much rather travel in a current Fiesta (with airbags, antilock brakes, etc) than an 83 GTI.

 

[Spazdog]

I wonder what would happen if they put the 2.5 MZR in the Mustang.

It would probably come in about 3400lbs. A little on the portly side. About 1000 or so more than a RWD 200SX or Celica. But it would have about 70-100 more horsepower than the RWD Japanese sporty coupes did in their day.

They could use older seat fabrics and patterns, Mach1 inspired stamped steel wheels, and bring it in at a competitive price. Should be able to get better gas mileage than the 3.7 and still be fun to drive. (my Celica was really fun and my Mustang L 2.3 was almost as fun)

The same arguement could be made for an ecotec 2.4 Camaro....although it would be even heavier. As heavy as an Equinox with a 2.4. We already know how that accelerates.

In the meantime we can only wait to see if BMW will bring the 120i here for a sporty RWD 4 cyl coupe.

 

[fdcg27]

Agreed!
Light weight is an often overlooked factor in making a car both economical and fun to drive.
Our 'seveties through 'eighties Civics were both.
You can't fool Father Physics, wrt to either handling feel or fuel consumption.
Compare EPA numbers all day long, but if I could buy a new '86 Civic Wagon, I'd be on my way to the Honda store right now.
A really slick 5 spd shifter, no need for power steering, and 40 mpg on my commute in actual use, along with a rev happy 1.5 liter that always felt faster than it really was.
The Fit is close, but not quite the same.

 

[antonmnster]

EPA figures from the 70s and 80s were from another planet. Old issues of Popular Mechanics on Google have adverts for smaller cars that all proclaim mileage in the 40s.

Today's small cars are certainly not small. I had a Versa rental that was the same size as my 3-series on the outside, and much roomier. And MPGs were obviously better. Fun to drive? Not really, but I loved the convenience and savings!

I'm excited about the new generation of small cars. About 10 years overdue.

 

[spasm3]

I don't want a car lighter than 23-2400lbs. a saturn s is as light as i want to be in!

 

[SrDriver]

Back in the late 1970s had a Mazda Hatchback with a 5 speed stick. It got 37 + mpg on the highway. Had A/C and a radio and that was about it.

Great little car.

 

[dparm]

The Honda Fit is pretty close to what you want, methinks. With the gas tank under the floor it handles surprisingly well.

 

[Rick in PA]

Dodge Omni GLH (turbo)
I often wished I had dropped that motor in my '83 Plymouth Scamp (a little pick-up truck variant of the Horizon),
now that would have Gone Like...

 

[MarkM66]

I build what I want.

.

 

[mva]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Compare EPA numbers all day long, but if I could buy a new '86 Civic Wagon, I'd be on my way to the Honda store right now.
A really slick 5 spd shifter, no need for power steering, and 40 mpg on my commute in actual use, along with a rev happy 1.5 liter that always felt faster than it really was.
The Fit is close, but not quite the same.


A reality check is needed! A new Honda Fit will leave an 1986 Civic Wagon in the dust (3 seconds quicker to 60 mph). I admit that it does get a couple of mpg less than the 86 Civic.

The 86 Civic got very good gas mileage but I would still rather own a Fit with A/C, power windows, power locks, stability control, multiple air bags, anti lock brakes, etc.

1986 Honda Civic Wagon

1500 cc, 76 hp

Wheelbase: 96.5 in Length: 163 in
Curb weight: 2100 lbs

Zero to 60 mph: 11.9 sec

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway: 30 mpg/35 mpg


2011 Honda Fit Sport

1500 cc, 117 hp

Wheelbase: 98.4 in Length: 162 in
Curb weight: 2500 lb

Zero to 60 mph: 8.7 sec

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway 27/33 mpg

 

[dparm]

If the CR-Z were a bit lighter and faster it would also be a solid choice. It's not quite the CRX repalcement they made it out to be.

 

[mva]

2011 Sub-Compact cars kick A$$ over compacts from the 80's and early 90's. Keep in mind that the 2011's have many more features.

Here is another one that almost matches the 86 Civic mpg but gets to 60 mph 2.7 seconds quicker.

2011 Mazda 2

base price: $15,000

1500 cc, 100 hp

Wheelbase: 98.0 in Length: 155.5 in
Curb weight: 2306 lbs

Zero to 60 mph: 9.2 sec

Braking, 70–0 mph: 178 ft

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway 29/35 mpg

Base model features

Advanced front air bags with passenger-weight and driver's seat-position sensors
Front side-impact air bags and side-impact air curtains
Front seat-belt pretensioners with force limiters
Anti-lock Brake System (ABS) w/ Electronic Brakeforce Distribution (EBD) & Brake Assist
Dynamic Stability Control (DSC)** and Traction Control System (TCS)

Side-impact door beams
Engine-immobilizer antitheft system
Keyless remote panic button (on key fob)
Tire-Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS)

Air conditioning with pollen filter
Power windows with driver's one-touch-down/up feature
Power door locks with 2-stage unlocking
Remote keyless entry
Tilt steering wheel

 

[ron917]

Originally Posted By: mva


2011 Honda Fit Sport
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway 27/33 mpg


The EPA numbers are low - my son's 2011 Fit (base with 5MT) gives him 38 MPG in mixed driving. Even the base Fit is well equipped, it a very nice car for $15K MSRP. The car is much larger inside than it looks - his complete drum kit fits behind the rear seat. And it's fun to drive!

 

[sciphi]

EPA numbers have been pretty accurate for our Fit. We get about 31-32 mpg in most driving. Sustained highway driving nets in the high 30's to low 40's.

It's the slushbox in this thing being so shift-happy, and the driver (not me) being clueless for driving efficiently. The same driver will knock about 6-7 mpg off of my Buick over the same route.

So, little hatches will be affected MPG-wise by slushboxes, and drivers driving idiotically.